"Curt Sampson" <cjs / cynic.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Pine.NEB.4.61.0501280820130.14315 / angelic-vtfw.cvpn.cynic.net...
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Robert Klemme wrote:
>
> > "Curt Sampson" <cjs / cynic.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:Pine.NEB.4.61.0501271018220.2459 / angelic-vtfw.cvpn.cynic.net...
> >
> >> But I would propose actually changing the language to better support
> >> this sort of thing.
> >
> > I opt against this: not every good or useful language feature must be
> > present in Ruby.
>
> No. Ruby could end up being a second-rate language instead.
Without type inference? I don't think so - and probably others, too.
> Look at Java. It was ten years behind the state of the art in OOP
> when it was first made, has advanced little since, and its prospects
> for real advancement are almost nil. (I'd bet that never going to
> see continuations in Java, for example.)
Java has native threads. That's definitively a major advantage -
especially on multiprocessor systems. Also with regard to OO Java is not
as bad as you claim. It got rid of several C++ problems (preprocessor,
multiple inheritance, weak RTTI) while introducing some of its own (jar
hell and classpath problems). It has very sophisticated runtime
environments (with GC, JIT, HotSpot, diagnostic interfaces...), something
I would not claim of Ruby.
> Java's already reliant on
> precompilers for things like macros and aspect-oriented programming.
Because it was not designed for that. C isn't designed for AOP either.
> That's why I left Java for Ruby.
>
> Lisp, on the other hand, in all of its various forms, is still one of
> the most powerful programming languages in the world, and is still
> being used to write new systems more than forty-five years after its
> invention.
Still, even Lisp is not suited to all programming tasks. Many languages
have their strengths and weaknesses and fields where they shine.
Regards
robert